Issued  Bi-monthly.  Published  by  the  University,  Eugene.  November,  1905. 

Entered  January  2, 1904,  at  Eugene,  Oregon,  assecond  class  matter  under  Act 
of  Congress  of  July  16,  1894. 


U.of  !.  DUPS. 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
NEW  SERIES  VOL.  2 


m 


UNIVERSITY  PUBLICATIONS. 


Public  School  Libraries  - September,  1903 

Beowulf  - - - January,  1904 

Water  Power  on  the  McKenzie  River  - - March,  1904 

Mineral  Resources  and  Mineral  Industries  of  Oregon  May,  1904 
Water  Power  on  the  Santiam  - November  1904 

Tendencies  in  Recent  American  Road  Legislation  January,  1905 
General  Register  of  the  University  of  Oregon  - March,  1905 
General  Announcements May,  1905 


STATE  NORMAL  SCHOOL 

SYSTEMS 

OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES 


Compiled  by 

DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCATION 
University  of  Oregon 


UNIVERSITY  OF  OREGON  BULLETIN 
NEW  SERIES  VOL.  2 


NO  6 


Published  by  the  University,  Eugene,  Oregon.  Issued  Bi-Monthly 
NOVEMBER,  1905 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/statenormalschoo00univ_0 


PREFACE. 


It  is  the  aim  of  the  present  paper  to  present  the  most  im- 
portant facts,  statistical  and  otherwise  relating  to  state  systems 
of  normal  schools  in  the  United  States  in  brief  and  convenient 
form.  In  order  that  all  the  facts  upon  which  the  conclusions 
are  based  may  be  as  accessible  to  the  public  as  to  the  writer,  the 
statistical  summary  and  the  replies  to  the  circular  letter  on 
normal  school  systems  are  printed  in  full  in  the  appendix. 

At  first  sight,  it  may  seem  strange  that  the  figures  for  tne 
vear  1902-03  should  be  the  latest  obtainable.  The  United  States 
bureau  of  education  which  furnishes  these  statistics  works  with  all 
possible  dispatch,  but  the  enormous  magnitude  of  the  task  and  the 
difficulty  of  securing  prom pt  returns  pre<  1 u de  m ore  rn  pid  tabu la- 
tion  and  publication.  The  writer  is  also  indebted  to  the  following 
books  for  information : Gordy,  J.  P.,  Rise  and  Growth  of  the  Nor- 
mal School  Idea  in  the  United  States;  Washington,  1891,  Dexter, 
.E  G.,  A History  of  Education  in  the  United  Stater,  New  York, 
1904  and  Hinsdale,  B.  A.,  Training  of  Teachers  in  Butler’s  Mono- 
graphs on  Education,  Vlo.  I„  Albany,  1900. 

In  some  cases,  the  writer  has  referred  to  certain  states  as 
having  one  normal  school,  when  very  recently  this  policy  has  been 
departed  from  and  one  or  two  new  institutions  established.  These 
schools  are  too  new  to  have  effected  conditions,  so  that  in  com- 
paring results,  there  is  no  injustice  in  classing  these  common- 
wealths with  states  which  have  never  departed  from  the  one 
central  school  idea. 


STATE  NORMAL  SCHOOL  SYSTEMS  IN  THE  UNITED 

STATES. 


The  first  legislative  recognition  in  America  of  the  necessity 
of  special  training  schools  for  teachers  was  given  by  the  state  of 
New  York  in  the  year  1835  and  took  the  form  of  a small  appro- 
priation for  the  support  of  teachers’  training  classes  in  a few 
of  the  academies  of  the  commonwealth.  Four  years  later,  Massa- 
chusetts, having  small  faith  in  the  efficiency  of  the  academy 
idea,  founded,  at  the  old  historic  town  of  Lexington,  the  first  in- 
stitution in  America  having  for  its  sole  purpose,  the  preparation 
of  teachers.  For  some  years  Massachusetts  found  few  imitators. 
New  York  was  the  first  to  follow  in  1844,  Connecticut  founded 
a normal  school  in  1849,  Michigan  1850,  Rhode  Island  1852,  Illin- 
ois, 1857,  Pennsylvania,  Minnesota,  New  Jersey  1859.  Py  I^75 
normal  schools  were  establisheed  as  an  integral  portion  of  the 
educatioanl  system,  in  all  the  states  of  the  union  save  eight.  At 
that  date  there  were  seventy  schools  in  operation  training  more 
than  fifteen  thousand  students. 

The  normal  school  system  of  the  country  has  been  rapidly 
gaining  strength  in  the  last  few  years.  In  the  period  from  i88g- 
90  to  1902-03  the  number  of  public  normals  increased  from  135 
to  1 77,  the  number  of  students  in  strictly  normal  courses  from 
26,917  to  49,175  and  the  number  of  graduates  from 
4,413  to  8,782.  While  the  attendance  did  not  quite  double  in 
this  period  of  thirteen  years,  the  sum  total  of  appropriations 
more  than  doubled,  as  the  commissioner  of  education  records 
$1,312,419  total  annual  appropriation  for  current  expenses  of 
normal  school  at  the  beginning  of  this  period  as  against  $3,582,- 
168  at  the  end.  These  sums  do  not  include  special  appropria- 
tions for  buildings  and  repairs. 


6 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Separate  normal  schools  are  established  by  law  and  sup- 
ported by  appropriations  in  forty-four  out  of  the  fifty  states  and 
territories  constituting  the  continental  possessions  of  the  United 
states.  Of  the  six  without  separate  normal  schools,  three,  Wy- 
oming, Utah  and  Nevada  provide  for  normal  training  in  con- 
nection with  their  state  universities.  Delaware,  the  fourth,  sends 
her  normal  students  to  the  institutions  of  the  otiier  states  for 
their  training,  leaving  only  Alaska  and  Indian  Territory  without 
provision  for  the  training  of  teachers.  Of  the  more  important 
states  of  the  Union,  Ohio  alone,  for  many  years  stood  out  against 
the  establishment  of  public  normals,  but  within  the  last  two 
years,  this  attitude  has  been  changed  and  two  institutions  for  the 
training  of  teachers  founded. 

Among  the  states  of  the  union,  two  divergent  lines  of  policy 
in  regard  to  the  location  and  size  of  normal  schools  have  been 
followed.  In  many  states,  number  of  moderately  sized  schools 
have  been  established,  each  school  ministering  to  the  needs  of 
one  particular  section.  Among  the  advocates  of  the  policy  are 
New  York  with  nineteen  public  normal  schools,  Pennsylvania 
with  fifteen,  Massachusetts  ten,  Wisconsin  nine,  West  Virginia 
and  Minnesota  six,  California  and  Illinois  five  and  numerous 
other  states  having  more  than  one  school.  Twenty  years  ago 
there  was  an  almost  equally  long  list  of  states  concentrating 
their  energies  on  one  strong  central  school.  This  list  included 
such  important  and  influential  states  as  Michigan,  New  Jersey, 
Connecticut,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas  and  Colorado.  In  recent 
years,  the  increase  of  population  and  wealth  together  with 
pressure  of  localities  remote  from  the  central  school,  has  caused 
a number  of  these  states  to  reverse  their  policy,  so  that  now 
Michigan  and  Connecticut  each  support  four  schools.  A num- 
ber of  these  states,  however,  still  maintain  their  former  policy. 

The  number  of  normal  schools  in  a state  has  small  meaning 
until  we  know  the  size  of  the  constituency.  For  instance.  New 
York,  (19  normal  schools),  having  an  estimated  population  in 
in  1903  of  7,659,814  persons  has  only  one  normal  school  for  ap- 
proximately every  400,000  persons,  while  Idaho  with  two  nor- 
mal schools  has  one  for  every  90,000  persons.  In  Pennsylvania 
there  is  one  normal  school  for  every  450,000  of  population  Mass- 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


7 


achusetts,  one  for  every  300,000;  Wisconsin,  one  for  every  230,- 
000;  California  one  for  every  300,000;  Illinois  one  for  every 

1.000. 000.  One  normal  school  for  each  400,000  persons  represents 
the  average  in  those  states  which  have  been,  for  many  years 
committed  to  a policy  of  local  schools. 

As  to  the  cost  of  maintaining  schools,  there  is  the  widest 
possible  variation  from  Mississippi  with  an  average  annual  out- 
lay of  $1,435  Per  school  and  Vermont  with  $6,723  at  one  end  of 
the  scale  to  the  great  central  school  of  Iowa  enjoying  a revenue 
of  more  than  $140,000  per  year  at  the  other.  The  average  income 
in  1902-03  per  normal  school  in  some  of  the  larger  northern  states 
devoted  to  the  policy  of  local  school  is  as  follows:  New  York, 
$38,000;  Pennsylvania,  $43,000;  Illinois,  $42,000;  Massachusetts, 
$33,000;  California,  $38,000  and  Wisconsin  $39,000.  States  de- 
pending on  one  large  central  school,  naturally  appropriate  to  a 
single  school  larger  sums  than  the  foregoing.  In  this  class 
chiefly  are  Indiana,  $72,500;  Kansas,  $70,000;  Colorado,  $67,000 
and  Rhode  Island,  $64,000. 

The  $3,500,000  spent  by  the  states  of  the  union  on  normal 
education  is  distributed  by  no  means  evenly.  Of  the  states 
which  possess  systems  of  such  efficiency  as  would  entitle  them 
to  consideration,  there  is  a vast  difference.  It  costs  Indiana  only 
$28  and  Nebraska  $31  per  1,000  persons  to  support  their  normal 
school  systems.  Washington  on  the  other  hand  spends  $225  per 
1,000  persons  or  almost  ten  times  as  much.  Wisconsin  Avith 
an  outlay  of  $164  per  1,000,  Colorado  $117  per  1,000,  California 
with  $121  per  1,000,  Oklahoma  $181  per  1,000  and  Rhode  Island 
$140  per  1,000  are  among  the  highest  in  the  union.  The  average 
is  represented  by  Massachusetts,  $89  per  1,000,  Michigan  $61  per 

1.000.  Minnesota  $77  per  1,000,  New  York  $80  per  7,000.  Pennsyl- 
vania $78  per  1,000,  South  Dakota  $75  per  1,000  and  Iowa  $60  per 

1.000. 

A truer  test  of  the  economy  of  the  system  is  found  in  the 
cost  per  year  of  training  each  student  enrolled.  The  factors  de- 
termining this  are,  first,  the  amount  of  support  and  secondly,  the 
number  of  students.  A state  appropriating  a large  sum  to  nor- 
mal education  if  it  has  a large  number  of  students,  may  have  a 
lower  rate  per  student  than  a state  with  small  appropriation  and 


8 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


few  students.  Here  again  we  find  most  startling  contrasts  be- 
tween extremes.  Kansas  trains  teachers  at  an  annual  cost  of  $36 
per  student,  Rhode  Island  pays  $294  for  the  same  service.  Among 
the  more  expensive  states  are  Colorado,  $248  per  student,  Mass- 
achusetts $150,  Oklahoma  $141,  South  Dakota,  $192,  Washington 
$189,  Wisconsin,  $140.  In  the  group  of  moderate  expense  are 
Michigan  $98  per  student,  Minnesota  $115,  New  York  $106, 
Pennsylvania  $84,  Illinois  $75  and  West  Virginia  $98. 

Another  question  of  fundamental  importance  is  the  capacity 
of  the  normal  schools  to  meet  the  demand  for  trained  teachers. 
If  the  testimony  of  the  state  superintendents  and  normal  school 
principals  is  to  be  relied  upon,  the  percentage  of  trained  teachers 
is  rapidly  increasing  throughout  the  country.  Of  the  common- 
wealths replying  to  circular  letter,  Arizona  leads  with  60  per 
cent  of  teachers  trained  in  normal  schools,  Utah  follows  with  50 
per  cent.  The  percentage  for  the  other  states  replying  runs 
as  follows : Massachusetts  46  per  cent,  California  38  per  cent, 
Connecticut  36  per  cent,  Indiana  20  per  cent,  Illinois  10  per  cent, 
Iowa,  12J4  per  cent,  Kansas  10  per  cent,  Louisiana  33  1-3  percent, 
Maine  23  per  cent,  Minnesota  25  per  cent,  Missouri  15  per  cent, 
New  Jersey  33  1-3  percent,  New  York  25  per  cent,  South  Carolina 
25  per  cent,  Vermont  24  per  cent,  Wisconsin  35  per  cent.  These 
figures  are  in  nearly  all  cases  approximate  and  in  some  instances 
pure  estimates,  so  that  too  much  importance  should  not  be  at- 
tached to  them.  However,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  rejecting 
the  general  conclusion  from  them  that  of  the  450,000  elementary 
teachers  in  the  United  States  in  1902-03,  about  100,000  or  in  the 
neighborhood  of  22  per  cent  have  had  considerable  normal  train- 
ing and  that  probably  15  per  cent  are  normal  graduates. 

The  significant  fact  that  less  than  25  per  cent  of  our  teachers 
are  properly  prepared  for  their  work  does  not  mean  that  we 
should  be  compelled  to  establish  four  times  as  many  normal 
schools  costing  four  times  as  much  money  in  order  to  prepare 
the  other  75  per  cent.  Many  of  the  normal  schools  are  new  and 
have  a proportionally  small  percentage  of  graduates,  others  could 
accommodate  a considerably  larger  number  of  students  without 
extra  expense.  There  is  also  a slow  tendency  toward  a longer 
term  of  service,  particularly  in  large  towns  and  cities,  so  in  the 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


9 


future  not  so  many  new  teachers  will  be  needed.  That  more  new 
schools  will  be  needed  especially  in  rapidly  growing*  sections  of 
the  country  and  in  those  states  where  the  existing  normals  are 
not  adequate  to  the  needs,  is  of  couse,  evident,  but  it  may  serious- 
ly be  questioned  whether  it  would  at  present  be  advisable  at  one 
stroke  of  the  pen  to  double  the  number  of  normal  schools,  were 
such  a step  possible. 

A fact  of  considerable  significance  in  this  connection  is  re- 
ported by  a number  of  superintendents  and  principals,  viz.  that 
nearly  the  entire  product  of  the  normal  school  is  absorbed  by  the 
graded  schools,  leaving  the  country  schools  largely  untouched 
by  normal  school  influences.  Thus  the  state  superintendent  of 
Iowa  reports  that  there  are  many  normal  school  graduates  in 
town,  few  in  the  country.  According  to  the  state  superintendent 
of  Montana,  the  normal  graduates  after  a term  or  two  of  exper- 
ience in  the  country,  all  settle  in  the  town  schools  In  Wiscon- 
sin one  of  the  normal  school  principals  estimates  that  of  9,000 
country  school  teachers  in  that  state,  only  1,000  are  normal  grad- 
uates, 3,500  others  having  attended  without  graduation.  On  the 
other  hand  nearly  all  of  the  3,500  teachers  in  graded  schools  have 
received  a normal  training.  In  states  like  California  where  good 
wages  are  paid  in  the  country  districts,  many  normally  trained 
teachers  are  found  there. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  this  undesirable  state 
of  affairs  in  regard  to  country  schools  is  in  no  manner  due  to  the 
normal  school,  but  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  business  and  trades  by 
which  the  most  efficient  workers  go  where  wages  are  highest 
and  conditions  best.  At  the  present  time,  it  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  the  wages  paid  in  the  country  districts  of  many  states  would 
hardly  justify  any  person  spending  three  years  of  time  and  $800 
in  cash  in  preparation  for  service  in  them.  Yet  nowhere  is  further 
training  more  needed  than  among  the  country  teachers.  The  best 
temporary  solution  of  this  problem  is  to  be  found  in  the  establish- 
ment of  brief  summer  schools  with  course  of  xo  to  12  weeks  in 
length,  one  for  each  county  or  small  group  of  counties.  As  these 
schools  would  be  in  session  during  the  summer  months,  the 
faculties  of  normal  schools  and  outside  schoolmen  of  experience, 
could  be  utilized  at  moderate  expenses  to  the  state.  An  appro- 


io  University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 

priation  of  $10,000  spent  in  this  manner  would  produce  ? more 
immediate  and  powerful  effect  for  good  on  the  rural  school  than 
any  other  measure  which  could  be  devised.  However,  such  a 
measure  must  necessarily  be  regarded  as  temporary,  a twelve 
weeks  review  of  element  subjects  and  methods  can  never  be 
the  equivalent  of  a good  normal  school  course. 

In  order  to  secure  the  experience  of  other  states,  the  depart- 
ment of  education  in  the  University  of  Oregon  issued  a circular 
letter  to  the  state  superintendent  and  normal  school  principals  of 
the  country.  Twenty  state  superintendents  and  fifty-two  princi- 
pals answered  the  letter.  The  replies  are  printed  in  the  appendix 
to  this  bulletin.  Nearly  all  the  most  important  normal  school 
states  are  well  represented  in  the  list  of  answers,  notably  New 
York,  Michigan,  Massachusetts,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Illinois, 
Iowa,  Kansas  and  California.  The  two  most  important  questions 
asked  in  the  circular  were  the  following: 

1.  Is  one  large  central  normal  school  preferable  to  a number 
of  normal  schools?  Why? 

2.  If  a state  supports  a number  of  normal  schools,  should 
they  be  controlled  by  one  central  board,  by  separate  local  boards 
for  each  institution  or  by  a combination  of  the  two? 

It  was  not  supposed  that  the  categorical  replies  one  way  or 
another,  would  be  particularly  valuable  as  there  would  be  a 
strong  tendency  for  each  superintendent  or  principal  to  defend  the 
system  in  vogue  in  his  own  state.  In  the  arguments  and  facts 
advanced  to  support  these  views,  it  was  hoped  that  some  light 
might  be  thrown  on  the  general  principles  of  the  subject  which 
might  embody  the  best  experience.  The  actual  replies  more 
than  satisfied  this  hope  as  we  shall  see.  While  there  were  all  pos- 
sible shades  of  individual  opinion,  there  emerges  from  the  dis- 
cussion a very  generally  accepted  body  of  conclusions.  These 
conclusions  can,  perhaps,  be  most  clearly  stated  as  arguments 
pro  and  con. 

One  of  the  strongest  arguments  in  favor  of  a system  of 
local  schools,  is  the  fact  that  in  most  states,  the  students  of  a nor- 
mal school  come  from  closely  adjacent  regions,  so  that  in  general 
a system  of  local  schools  reaches  more  students  and  therefore 
trains  more  teachers  than  can  a single  central  school.  All  the 
more  populous  states  having  a large  percentage  of  normally  train- 


/ 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin  i1 

ed  teachers  like  Wisconsin,  Massachusetts  and  California  are 
states  which  maintain  a system  of  local  schools.  There  is  much 
testimony  to  this  effect  from  the  replies.  One  of  the  most  inter- 
esting written  by  the  principal  of  the  Milwaukee  normal,  dis- 
cusses conditions  in  Michigan.  “My  native  state  is  Michigan 
where  for  years  they  have  had  one  large  normal  school.  Investi- 
gation showed  that  ninety  per  cent  of  its  attendance  was  drawn 
from  adjacent  counties.  It  was  not  big  enough  to  make  itself  felt 
throughout  the  state.  Within  the  past  eight  years  three  new 
normal  schools  were  established  in  Michigan.  The  attendance  at 
the  central  school  has  materially  increased  and  the  three  other 
schools  are  full.  Each  one  of  the  schools  draws  largely  from  its 
own  locality.” 

There  are  one  or  two  striking  exceptionstothisgeneralization. 
Iowa  and  Kansas  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  last  com- 
missioner’s report  had  practically  only  a single  school,  yet  the 
number  of  normal  students  trained  was  relatively  large,  Iowa 
having  2,231  students  or  1 for  each  1,047  population.  Kansas 
1,954  students  or  1 for  each  752  of  population.  California  with 
five  normal  schools  had  an  attendance  of  1,604  students  or  1 for 
each  975  of  population.  Wisconsin  with  nine  schools,  2,514  stu- 
dents or  1 for  each  857  of  population.  Just  why  Iowa  and  Kansas 
should  succeed  where  other  states  have  failed  is  not  clear,  Kansas 
at  one  time  paid  the  traveling  expenses  of  students  beyond  a 
radius  of  one  hundred  miles  from  a normal  school.  Iowa  al- 
though almost  equally  successful  had  no  such  provision.  It  is 
worthy  of  note,  however,  that  while  Iowa  and  Kansas  have  an 
unusally  heavy  percentage  of  normal  students,  they  have  a 
relatively  small  percentage  of  normally  trained  teachers : Iowa 
1 2.y2  per  cent  and  Kansas  10  per  cent,  which  must  mean  that 
either  their  graduates  enter  other  professions  largely  or  migrate; 
probably  the  latter. 

The  point  most  frequently  made  in  support  of  the  small  local 
normal  school  is  found  in  the  statement  that  their  training  or 
practice  school  facilities  are  more  likely  to  be  adequate  than  those 
of  a large  school.  The  training  school  is  to  the  normal  what  a 
laboratory  is  to  a man  of  science ; it  fs  the  place  where  observa- 
tion and  experience,  the  future  teacher  learns  her  art.  Without  a 


12 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


practice  school  for  this  essential  work,  a normal  school  is  but 
little  better  than  a specialized  high  school.  Most  state  normal 
schools  are  located  in  but  moderately  sized  towns,  and  there  is 
always  the  danger  that  the  number  of  normal  students  will  in- 
crease more  rapidly  than  the  available  supply  of  children  for 
the  training  department ; the  larger  the  school,  the  greater  the 
danger.  Says  the  principal  of  the  Chico,  California,  normal  school, 
“The  great  feature  in  the  preparation  of  teachers  is  their  practice 
teaching  which  cannot  be  effective  in  large  schools.”  The  prin- 
cipal of  another  California  normal  (San  Diego)  writes:  “If  the 
normal  school  is  too  large  there  is  difficulty  in  securing  ample 
training  school  facilities.”  These  happen  to  be  the  first  two  state- 
ments of  opinion  on  the  list  but  twelve  other  witnesses  testify  to 
the  same  effect. 

There  is  also  a general  consensus  of  opinion  that,  after 
a certain  number  is  reached,  there  is  a sure  loss  of  institutional 
efficiency.  The  personal  influence  of  the  president  and  leading 
professors  becomes  less  evenly  diffused,  their  place  is  taken  by 
cheap  assistants.  The  student  societies  become  large  and  un- 
wieldy and  therefore  inefficient ; the  building  up  of  a school  spirit 
which  reaches  the  lives  and  ideals  of  the  students,  is  increaseingly 
difficult.  The  idea  is  well  expressed  by  the  president  of  the 
Madison,  South  Dakota  normal.  “The  great  school  has  a mass  of 
students  and  educates,  trains  and  graduates  in  mass.  Th^  school 
of  from  200  to  500,  graduating  from  40  to  80  each  year  knows, 
educates  and  trains  every  individual  and  is  sure  of  its  work ; 
it  developes  character  and  power.”  Another  statement  to  the 
same  effect  comes  from  the  principal  of  the  Whitewater  normal 
school,  Wisconsin.  “A  large  central  school  is  too  much  of  a 
machine.  Pupils  have  too  little  contact  with  the  administration 
and  stronger  members  of  the  faculty.  Too  much  of  the  instruc- 
tion in  such  cases  is  done  by  subordinate  and  comparitively  cheap 
instructors.  The  school  cannot  accomplish  any  such  work  in 
the  way  of  character  building  and  personal  moulding  of  students 
as  is  done  in  smaller  schools.” 

There  is  no  agreement  as  to  the  exact  point  at  which  a nor- 
mal school  becomes  unwieldy.  One  correspondent  puts  it  as  low 
as  300  and  another  as  high  as  1,000.  The  weight  of  opinion  would 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin  13 

place  the  line  neared  the  lower  than  the  higher  figure,  perhaps  at 
about  500. 

A normal  school,  by  the  outside  work  of  its  professors  and 
through  the  influence  of  its  students  should  act  as  a general 
stimulus  to  the  schools  of  the  communities  adjacent  to  it.  Amer- 
can  normal  schools  as  a rule  do  not  undertake  to  advise  and  direct 
their  graduates  as  in  France  and  Germany,  but  in  the  main  they 
should  be  expected  to  exert  a steady  and  uplifting  influence  on  the 
common  schools  nearest  to  them.  Most  American  states  are  too 
extensive  geographically  and  too  populous  to  be  reached  in  this 
way  by  a single  school,  no  matter  how  efficient  it  may  be.  The 
entire  population  of  Rhode  Island,  New  Hampshire  and  New 
Jersey  are  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  one  school,  but  not 
so  with  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  and  the  great  common- 
wealths of  the  west  and  south.  As  put  by  the  state  superintend- 
ent of  Missouri,  “Several  schools,  located  in  different  parts  of 
our  state  will  come  more  directly  in  contact  with  teachers  and 
influence  them  more.  The  faculty  of  a normal  school  having 
about  twenty  counties  in  its  district  will  in  some  measure  super- 
vise the  schools  of  that  district,  while  one  large  central  school 
will  not  reach  the  teachers  of  the  outlying  counties  and  will  not 
exert  the  same  influence  on  these  counties  as  upon  those  nearer 
its  location.” 

Some  other  agruments  are  mentioned  by  the  superintendents 
and  principols,  such  as  that  a number  of  normal  schools  can  se- 
cure appropriations  easier  than  one  and  that  competition  is  neces- 
sary to  secure  efficiency,  which  advantages  either  miss  the  mark 
or  are  purely  incidental  in  their  nature.  The  case  for  a system  of 
small  normal  schools  rests  on  the  ground  that  in  large  and  popu- 
lous states  such  a system  trains  more  teachers,  provides  more 
adequate  practice  school  facilities,  moulds  the  lives  of  the  stu- 
dents to  a greater  extent  and  exerts  a stronger  beneficial  influence 
on  the  school  system  than  could  one  large  central  school. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  a central 
school  could  train  the  same  number  of  students  more  cheaply. 
Many  of  the  advocates  of  a system  of  small  schools  admit  this 
fact.  For  instance  the  state  superintendent  of  Minnesota  writes : 
“From  the  standpoint  of  economy  to  the  sta+e,  I think  it  pre- 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


ferable  to  maintain  only  one  large  central  school.  From  the 
standpoint  of  those  in  attendance,  however,  I think  it  better 
economy  to  have  several  located  in  different  sections  of  the  state.” 
Such  a quotation  could  be  multiplied.  States  with  only  one  school 
or  which  perhaps,  have  very  recently  added  one  or  two  weak  in- 
stitutions with  small  appropriations  and  few  students,  so  that  for 
practical  purposes  there  is  only  one  school  show  a comparative- 
ly large  gain  in  economy.  The  following  brief  statistical  sum 
mary  between  two  typical  groups  tells  the  tale. 

Group  of  states  having  in  1902-03  practically  one  school : 


Cost  of  Normal  School  Cost  per  Year  of 
per  1000  Persons.  Each  Student. 

Iowa  $60  $63 

Kansas  48  36 

Nebraska  , 31  62 

Indiana  28  52 

Group  of  states  having  a system  of  small  local  schools : 

Cost  of  Normal  School  Cost  Per  Year  of 
per  1000  Persons.  Each  Student. 

Wisconsin  $164  $140 

New  York 80  106 

Massachusetts  89  150 

California  121  118 


When  a central  school  fails  to  attract  large  attendance,  it 
then  is  usually  more  expensive  proportionally  than  a system  of 
local  schools.  Colorado  is  a case  in  point  where  the  cost  of  train- 
ing a student  for  a year  reaches  the  high  figure  of  $248  per 
year,  a rate  higher  than  that  of  some  of  the  most  efficient 
universities  which  have  a much  omre  extensive  plant. 

Another  advantage  in  concentrating  all  the  state’s  effort  in 
one  school  is  found  in  the  correspondingly  superior  equipment 
and  plant  which  such  a concentration  renders  possible.  The 
gain  is  represented  by  better  gyjnnasium  and  museums,  excellent 
manual  training  and  kindergarten  departments,  more  advanced 
and  specialized  courses  of  instruction.  The  principals  of  the  large 
schools  take  particular  pains  to  emphasize  this  point.  The  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  a letter  written  by  the  principal  of  the 
Iowa  school  at  Cedar  Rapids  represents  others:  “There  are  many 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


15 


reasons  why  a good  strong  normal  school  is  to  be  prelerred  to 
several  weak  ones,  among  which  the  privilege  of  having  gradu- 
ating classes  at  the  end  of  every  term,  to  place  upon  the  schedule 
of  recitations  each  term,  the  varieties  and  divisions  of  class  work 
and  to  have  many  specialties  such  as  music  and  art,  as  well  as  to 
maintain  a superior  lecture  course  that  a small  school  could 
never  afford.  We  are  able  to  have  the  Theodore  Thomas  Or- 
chestra come  to  this  school  to  give  three  concerts  costing  $2,300. 
Such  a transaction  could  not  occur  were  the  school  small.” 

It  is  quite  possible  to  over  emphasize  the  importance  of  this 
advantage.  There  is  a limit  to  the  amount  of  equipment  neces- 
sary for  a normal  school.  In  spite  of  the  testimony  of  two 
or  three  correspondents  to  the  contrary,  there  is  no  reason  why 
a normal  school  should  have  the  equipment  of  a good  university. 
The  normal  school  has  a single  definite  aim,  the  training  of  ele- 
mentary teachers,  while  a university  aims  to  train  men  for  a half 
dozen  professions,  all  requiring  more  specialized  work  than 
preparation  for  elementary  teachers  and  also  attempts  to  encour- 
age original  research  at  the  same  time.  The  implication  of  the 
writer  quoted  in  the  previous  paragraph,  that  a number  of  normal 
schools  means  necessarily  weak  schools  is  refuted  by  the  systems 
of  Wisconsin,  Massachusetts,  Illinois  and  California,  where  the 
schools  are  on  an  efficient  basis.  Up  to  a certain  point  the  argu- 
ment for  a central  school  on  the  ground  of  better  equipment  has 
great  weight,  but  after  that  point  is  reached,  the  addition  of  fur- 
ther equipment  adds  comparitively  little  to  the  real  efficiency 
of  the  school. 

Another  argument  for  a central  school  is  that  it  has  much 
greater  prestige.  The  greater  number  of  normal  schools,  the  less 
the  esteem  in  which  they  are  held.  As  one  writer  expresss  it : 
“The  smaller  schools  do  not  rise  to  the  dignity  a normal  school 
should  possess/’  A still  further  objection  to  a system  of  small 
schools  is  the  fact  that  these  schools  by  competing  among  them- 
selves lower  the  standard  of  admission  and  scholarship  and  bring 
normal  school  education  into  bad  repute.  This  difficulty  is  easily 
remedied  by  putting  all  the  normal  schools  under  one  strong  cen- 
tral board  which  by  uniform  standards  will  prevent  rivalry  and  its 
attendant  ills. 


i6 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


To  strike  a balance  between  the  merits  of  the  two  systems 
which  will  be  equally  applicable  to  all  states  is  obviously  imprac- 
ticable in  states  where  a central  normal  school  is  readily  ac- 
cessible to  the  entire  population  and  its  influence  as  easily  dif- 
fused the  balance  readily  inclines  to  a single  strong  school.  In 
commonwealths  having  vast  populations  like  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania  or  of  almost  continental  proportions  like  California 
or  Texas,  the  establishment  of  a number  of  central  schools  be- 
comes a necessity.  In  case  of  states  of  considerable  extent,  but  as 
yet  possessing  little  wealth  and  contain  a small  population,  yet 
growing  rapidly,  states  like  Oregon,  Washington  and  Idaho, 
the  problem  becomes  more  intricate. 

1 he  first  requisite  is,  in  all  cases,  efficency.  What  is  the  smallest 
appropriation  which  will  support  a first-class  school  of  from  150 
to  250  students?  This  question  was  included  in  the  circular  letter 
sent  to  the  principals  and  superintendents  above  mentioned.  The 
replies  varied  from  $15,000  a year  at  one  limit  to  Siooooo  at  the 
other,  the  great  majority,  however,  placed  their  estimates  between 
$25,000  and  $40,000.  When  we  compare  these  figures  with  the 
actual  expense  in  some  of  the  most  successful  normal  school 
states  such  as  Wisconsin  $39,000;  Massachusetts,  $33,000  ; New 
York  and  California  $38,000,  we  can  safely  conch: de  that  under 
ordinary  conditions  no  normal  school  can  be  put  on  an  efficient 
basis  for  less  than  25,000  for  current  expenses. 

The  salary  schedules  which  many  principals  kindly  eu*  lesed 
in  their  replies  to  the  circular  letter  form  an  interesting  study. 
From  them,  we  learn  that  in  the  states  possessing  the  most 
efficient  normal  schools,  the  principal  receives  $3,000  a yea'’,  men 
professors  of  experience  from  $1,400  to  $2,200  per  year;  women 
professors  in  the  normal  school  proper  from  $1,000  to  $r.6oo, 
women  teachers  in  the  training  department  $750  to  $1,000.  These 
salaries  may  seen  excessive  to  some,  yet  the  fact  that  states  as 
far  apart  as  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Michigan,  Wisconsin, 
Minnesota,  Kansas  and  California  all  pay  at  this  rate,  furnishes 
strong  presumptive  evidence  that  such  salaries  are  necessary  to 
secure  first-rate  talent  and  that  lower  salaries  (than  these)  mean 
less  efficient  service. 

An  easy  method  of  economizing  sometimes  adopted  is  to 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


17 


eliminate  the  men  with  the  exception  of  the  principal.  This  at 
first  glance  does  not  seem  to  touch  the  standard  of  efficiency  as 
$1,200  will  secure  a strong  woman  professor,  while  at  least  $1,600 
or  $1,800  is  necessary  to  secure  a man  of  equal  ability.  In  the 
end  this  policy  destroys  the  balance  and  vitality  of  the  school  and 
impairs  its  administrative  effectiveness. 

At  the  schedule  quoted  above,  the  following  budget  would 
meet  the  needs  of  a school  of  not  to  exceed  300  students. 


President  

$3,0000 

Four  men  at 

— $1,750 

7,000 

Four  women  at 

4,800 

Two  women  at 

1,000 

2,000 

Four  critic  teachers  at 

....  800 

3,200 

20,000 

Janitor,  supplies,  library  . . . . 

5,000 

$25,000 

In  regard  to  the  organization  of  the  governing  machinery  in 
a system  of  local  schools  there  is  a great  variety  of  opinion  Most 
of  the  educators  favor  the  plan  which  happened  to  be  in  vogue 
ni  their  own  states.  The  argument  for  separate  local  boards  rests 
on  the  assumption  that  conditions  are  likely  to  be  quite  different 
in  different  sections  of  a state ; one  section  may  be  old  and 
wealthy,  another  portion  poor  and  undeveloped.  A standard 
suitable  to  a normal  school  in  the  first  might  strangle  a struggling 
institution  on  the  frontier.  Central  boards  tend  to  rigid  uniform- 
ity in  standards  and  rules,  a number  of  local  boards  favors  flex- 
ibility. Thus  the  principal  of  the  De  Kalk  normal  school,  Illinois, 
replies  “Separate  boards  if  the  localities  vary  greatly  in  condi- 
tions.” In  a local  board,  however,  there  is  always  a strong  danger 
of  a subordination  of  state  interests  to  the  financial  interest  of  the 
particular  localities.  A local  board  frequently  wants  a large  num- 
ber of  students  at  any  cost  and  as  large  an  expenditure  of  money 
as  possible  in  improvements.  A local  board  is  often  favorable  soil 
for  germination  of  faculty,  neighborhood  and  sectarian  quarrels, 
a steady  policy  is  a difficult  matter  for  the  president  to  attain, 
hampered  as  he  is  likely  to  be  by  numerous  local  interests.  The 


i8 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


principal  of  the  Mankota  normal  school,  Minnesota  represents 
this  opinion  when  he  writes : “We  decided  prefer  our  system  of 
one  central  board  as  giving  large  freedom  to  the  president  and 
freedom  from  local  interference.”  The  principal  of  the  New  York 
City  normal  school  speaks  more  sharply : “By  a central  board, 
local  boards  are  chiefly  interested  in  local  graft.”  Some  corre- 
spondents favor  a compromise  scheme  by  which  the  apopintment 
of  teachers  and  business  management  is  left  in  local  hands  while 
all  matters  are  regulated  to  course  of  study,  certification  and  stan- 
dard of  admission  are  regulated  by  a central  committee,  consist- 
ing of  certain  members  of  the  different  local  committees. 

While  a successful  management  of  normal  schools  is  possible 
under  a number  of  different  local  boards  the  mass  of  argument 
and  testimony  inclines  to  the  other  side,  the  most  successful  nor- 
mal school  states  have  either  one  central  board  of  the  compromise 
plan  in  which  a central  board  controls  scholastic  conditions.  The 
state  as  a state  should  have  a normal  school  policy  consistently 
carried  out,  not  a number  of  different  policies  to  suit  the  business 
interests  of  various  towns.  As  local  condition  need  some  atten- 
tion, a local  member  from  each  normal  school  town  on  the  central 
board  secures  this  nesessary  safeguard. 

A point  of  interest  which  was  raised  by  several  correspond- 
ents was  the  economy  of  the  state  paying  the  railway  fare  of  stu- 
dents at  a great  distance  from  central  school  instead  of  founding 
local  schools.  In  order  to  elicit  all  inforamtion  possible  on  this 
interesting  problem,  a letter  was  sent  to  a large  group  of  states, 
Colorado,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Iowa,  Michigan,  Michigan  and  In- 
diana, asking  for  information  on  this  point.  No  state  but  Kansas 
has  apparently  ever  tried  this  scheme,  and  from  Kansas,  no  reply 
could  be  obtained  although  from  private  sources  it  is  known  that 
at  one  time,  this  plan  worked  well  there. 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  TO  STATISTICAL  TABLE. 


These  statistcs  are  taken  from  the  reports  of  the  United 
States  commissioner  of  education  for  1902-3.  The  estimated  pop- 
ulation by  states  is  found  in  vol-  1 p lxxvii.  The  number  of  schools 
is  found  in  table  1,  vol.  11,  p 1756;  the  number  of  student^  in 
table  2,  vol.  2,  p.  1757,  this  number  includes  only  the  statement  in 
normal  courses,  about  5,000  students  in  business  and  other  courses 
are  excluded.  The  amount  of  income  by  states  is  given  in  table  5, 
p.  1760,  vol.  2.  The  other  items  in  the  following  table,  viz : Aver- 
age income  per  school,  cost  of  normal  schools  per  1000  inhabi- 
tants, cost  of  educating  each  normal  student  and  the  ratio  of  nor- 
mal students  to  entire  population  are  not  given  in  the  commis- 
sioner’s report  but  have  been  compiled  from  the  other  items  by 
the  present  writer. 

The  total  income  represents  all  possible  resources  for  current 
expenses,  not  merely  the  legislative  appropriations.  Thus  the 
total  income  of  the  Oregon  normals  was  $56,458,  while  the  legisla- 
ture appropriation  was  $40,350 ; the  difference  represents  tuition 
fees  and  miscellaneous  sources  of  income.  In  some  states,  a few 
schools  failed  to  report  income : the  number  actually  reporting  is 
put  in  brackets  to  the  right  of  the  total  income.  The  financial 
statistics  are  therefore  incomplete  but  not  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
destroy  their  usefulness.  When  they  are  incomplete  the  figures 
as  to  the  cost  of  normal  education  per  1,000  of  population  and  cost 
of  training  each  normal  student  are  only  approximately  correct. 
This  is  true  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  but  not  of  Illinois, 
Michigan,  Wisconsin  or  California. 

The  institutions  included  in  this  list  are  the  public  normal 
schools  of  the  United  States  and  consist  of  municipal  as  well  as 
state  normal  schools.  In  only  a few  states  do  municipal  normal 
schools  exist. 


20 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools 

Alabama 

1.  Florence  N.  S. 
414  Students. 

One  is  best  until  system  is  well  established,  two 
or  more  are  prone  to  work  against  each  other. 

2.  Jacksonville 

N.  S. 

No;  the  closer  you  put  a school  to  the  people  the 
more  of  them  you  reach. 

Arizona 

3 State  Super. 

No,  in  large  states  and  territories  where  distances 
are  so  great. 

1 Flagstaff  N.  S. 

j 

No,  just  a reasonable  number  well  distributed  will 
reach  a much  larger  student  body  and  thus  reach 
the  home  life  of  many  more.  Do  not  centralize. 

j.  Tempe  N.  S. 

Depends  upon  conditions.  If  the  central  normal 
school  is  so  located  as  to  be  able  to  secure  unlimited 
training  school  facilities,  then  one  large  school  is 
preferable,  because  better  faculty  and  equipment  can 
be  procured  at  same  cost. 

California. 

6.  State  Super. 

One  large  school  would  make  more  expense  to 
the  people  in  sending  their  students  so  far  than  it 
takes  to  run  four  or  five  schools. 

7.  Chico,  N.  S.  One  large  central  normal  school  is  not  prefer- 

able to  several  smaller  schools,  the  great  feature 
| in  the  preparation  of  teachers  is  their  practice  train- 
ing, which  cannot  be  effective  in  large  schools. 


University  ot  Oregon  Bulletin 


21 


Central  vs.  Local 
Boards. 

Appropriation 
sufficient  for| 
Small  Normal 
School. 

|Per  Cent  of  Nor- 
mal trained 
Teachers. 

Salary  Schedule 

By  separate  state 
boards  with  Supt 
of  P.  Instruction 
on  each  board. 

A combination  of 
local  and  state 
board. 

By  a separate 

board  for  each 
school  as  condi- 
tions may  vary 
in  different  lo- 
calities. 

$25,000 

1 

1 

Rapidly  increas- 
ing. 

$15,000  to  $20,000  | 

Rapidly  increas- 
ing. 

President  $2,250 

2 profs  1,500 

2 profs.  1,000 

4 profs  900 

This  is  a hard 
question  but  I 

would  say  $25,000 
per  year. 

1 

60  per  cent  large- 
ly increasing. 

1 

1 

i 

President  $2,250 

Heads  of 

depts.  1,250 

Assistants  500 

to  600 

Let  the  Supt.  of 
public  instruction 
be  the  chairman 
of  each  local 

board,  hot  more 
than  five  in  num- 
ber. 

From  $25,000  to 
$30,000. 

45  per  cent.  Yes, 
Very  noticeably. 

1 

President  $2,250 
Lowest  1,100 

Separate  local 

boards  acting-  un- 
der the  same 

general  laws  re- 
lating to  normal 
schools. 

$40,000  for  run- 
ning expenses  in- 
cluding repairs. 

60  per  cent  in- 
creasing very 

rapidly  in  last  2 
years. 

iPrincipal  ..$2,250 
lprof.  1,750 

1 prof.  1,650 

3 profs.  1,300 

5 profs.  1,250 

3 profs.  850 

1 prof.  750 

Joint  board  from 
all  the  schools 
should  govern 

course  study,  lo- 
cal boards  em- 
ploy teachers  and 
attend  to  local 
matter. 

20,000  is  suffi- 
cient if  only  high 
school  graduates 
are  admitted  as 
in  case  of  San 
| Francisco. 

38  per  cent. 

I prefer  idea  of  a 
central  board 

with  respect  to 
standards  of  ad- 
mission minimun 
requirements  of 
course  of  study, 
graduation  and 

the  like  but  I pre- 
fer considerable 
local  autonomy  in 
order  togive prin- 
cipal and  faculty 
freedom  as  re- 
gards details  and 
and  adaptation  to 
locality. 

From  $30,000  to 
$40,000  for  run- 
ning expenses. 

Refer  to  state 

superintendent’s 

report. 

1 

1 

1 

President  $3,400 
2 profs.  1,800 

2 profs.  1,700 

1 2 profs.  1,500 

|1  prof.  1,400 

|2  profs.  1,300 

1 5 profs.  1,200 

5 profs.  1,000 

|1  prof.  900 

1 

1 

22 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


1 

Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 

8.  Los  Angeles  ! 

1 

One  I think  has  greater  strength;  has  less  diver- 
sion of  sentiment,  can  better  meet  university  opposi- 
tion which  is  shown  by  the  state  universities. 

9.  San  Diego  N. 
S. 

Central  vs.  Local  Schools. 

No  each  normal  school  has  an  influence  on  educa- 
tion "in  surrounding  country.  If  the  school  is  too 
large  there  is  difficulty  in  securing  ample  training 
school  facilities.  Students  in  small  schools  arc  better 
known  by  faculty. 

10.  San  Francisco 

It  is  not;  normal  education,  is  a local  matter. 

1 

11.  San  Jose  N.  S. 

I think  it  better  if  attendance  in  any  normal 
school  could  be  kept  under  300.  Faculty  get  personally 
acquainted  with  all  etc. 

Colorado. 

12.  Greeley  N.  S. 

| Central  school  is  preferable  until  the  state  is  well 

developed  and  has  plenty  of  money  to  keep  fully 
equip  others. 

Connecticut. 

13.  State  Super. 

In  a small  state  like  Connecticut  a single  normal 
school  is  preferable,  if  model  schools  and  practice  fa- 
cilities can  be  secured,  the  question  was  before  the 
state  board  of  education  several  years  ago  and  we 
advised  the  legislators  to  enlarge  the  single  school 
then  in  existence.  The  legislature  did  not  follow  our 
jadvice  but  established  another  school  and  now  we 
|have  four.  Reasons  for  consolidation  are  economy  of 
| expense  and  unity  of  organization  and  purpose. 

14.  New  Britain 
N.  S. 

No.  Smaller  schools  if  well  supported  can  look 

1 after  the  training  of  the  pupils;  bettor  success  of  a 
[normal  school  depends  on  schools  for  practice. 

15.  Willamette  N. 
S. 

It  is  my  belief  that  a number  of  schools  of  a 
moderate  size  are  preferable  to  one  large  school  be- 
cause of  the  difficulties  involved  in  providing  training 
facilities  for  large  classes  of  normal  students. 

University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


23 


Boards. 

Central  vs.  Local 

Appropriation  1 
sufficient  for  | 
Small  Normal  | 

|Per  Cent  of  Nor- 1 
mal  trained 
Teachers. 

Salary  Schedule 

Combination. 

$26,000  for  run- 
ning expenses. 

38  per  cent. 

Central  vs.  Local 
board. 

Not  prepared  to 
say. 

Appropriation. 

$33,000. 

Per  Cent  of  Nor- 
mally Trained 
Teachers. 

33  1-3  in  1903  to 
38  in  1904. 

1 

President  $3,400 

3 profs.  1,800 

1 prof.  • 1,700 

4 profs.  1,600 

2 profs.  1,500 

[1  prof.  1,400 

1 prof.  1,200 

1 prof.  1,000 

3 profs.  900 

This  depends 

wholly  on  the 
board. 

$25,000  to  $30,000 
for  current  ex- 
penses. 

46  per  cent.  Is  in- 1 
creasing  rapidly. 

1 

1 

1 

President  $3,400 
[2  profs.  2,000 

\2  profs.  1,800 

1 prof.  1,620 

2 profs.  1,500 

1 prof.  840 

12  prof  780 

1 prof.  720 

Combination;  lo- 
cal too  much  in-| 
fluenced  by  local 
conditions. 

. 

1 

$30,000  to  $35,000. 

. 

1 

30  per  cent;  in- 
creasing. 

President  $3,400 

1 prof.  . 2,200 

2 profs.  1,800 

1 prof.  1,700 

4 profs.  1,600 

7 profs.  1,500 

!3  profs.  1,300 

1 4 profs.  1,200 

1 prof.  1,100 

1 prof.  900 

1 

Should  one  board 
with  a local 

member  where 

school  is  located 
to  work  with. 

$25,000  to  $30,000 

Large  and  in- 
creasing. 

Schools  should  be 
controlled  by  a 
single  board  and 
perhaps  by  a 
single  person. 

$30,000  is  not  too 
large  for  a school 
of  250  students 
with  a good 

plant,  i 

1 1,550  teachers  out 

|of  4,300.  36  per 

I cent. 

1 

I 

j 

Central  Board. 

$25,000 

33  1-3,  is  increas- 
ing. 

1 

1 

1 

Control  by  cen- 
tral board  satis- 
factory. 

j 

Less  than  50  per 

cent. 

1 

24 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 

Idaho. 

16.  Albion  N.  S. 

“There  should  be  two  or  more  in  a state  if  state 
is  too  large  for  one  school  tc-  get  in  close  touch  with 
all  parts  of  the  state.” 

17.  Lewiston  N. 
S. 

“One  school  is  preferable  up  to  an  attendance 
limit  of  about  400.  If  the  attendance  runs  higher  than 
about  that  number,  it  is  practically  impossible  to  get 
good  results  for  teachers  in  the  training  school  as 
there  are  too  limited  opportunities  for  teaching.  To 
the  state  it  is  made  more  economical  to  have  one 
large  school.  (Remarks  on  transportation  accompany 
thi's.) 

Illinois 

18.  Carbondale  N. 
S. 

“No.  Because  of  the  advantages  of  local  patronage 
which  is  always  a factor  of  more  or  less  importance, 
is  increased  by  having  more  than  one  institution.  The 
local  interest  is  helpful.  As  a rule  the  larger  number 
of  sections  interested,  the  easier  to  secure  appropria- 
tions from  the  legislature. 

19.  Charleston,  N. 
S. 

No.  The  area  most  adjacent  to  a normal  school  is 
most  effective.  Hence  there  is  a greater  stimulus 
from  a number  of  schools.” 

20.  DeKalb  N.  S. 

“No.  Too  big.” 

21  Normal,  111. 

“Several  small  ones  will  secure  more  careful 
training.  The  large  schools  give  excellent  instruction 
and  are  full  of  enthusiasm.” 

University  of  Oregon  Bulletin  25 


Central  vs  local 
Boards. 

Appropriation 
sufficient  for 
Small  Normal 

|Per  cent  of  Nor- 
mal Trained 
Teachers. 

Salary  Schedule. 

“By  separate 
boards.” 

$30,000  to  $40,000 
for  biennial  pe- 
riod for  mainte- 
nance alone. 

20  per  cent,  in- 
creasing. 

1 

President  $2,250 

2 profs.  1,200 

2 profs.  1,100 

1 prof.  1,000 

2 profs  900 

1 profs  750 

1 prof.  500 

This  is  a difficult 
question  to  an- 
swer satisfactor- 
ily. Wisconsir 

does  weil  with 
one  board.  In 

other  states  it 
has  hampered 

the  work  and  put 
the  school  into 
politics.  It  goes 
back  to  a consid- 
eration of  the] 
personnel  of  the; 
board. 

$25,000  a year  for 
maintenance. 

[ Increasing. 

(President  2,400 

4 profs.  1,350 

1 prof.  1,500 

1 prof.  1,150 

1 prof.  1,100 

1 prof.  1,000 

1 prof.  950 

1 prof.  780 

1 prof.  600 

There  are  ad-| 
vantages  in  each| 
method.  In  Illin- 
ois there  is  a| 
separate  board! 

for  each  schoolj 
and  it  works  well. 

About  $40,000.  | 

• I 

10  percent,  in- 
creasing slowly. 

1 

(President  $3,700 

1 prof.  2,350 

5 profs.  2,000 

1 prof.  1,900 

2 profs.  1,500 

2 profs.  1,300 

2 profs.  1,200 

3 profs.  1,100 

1 prof.  900 

I do  not  know.  II  $35,000 
have  had  eleven] 
years  experience 
under  our  central! 
board  and  six  un-| 
der  separatej 

boards.  Each  plan] 
has  its  advant-| 

ages.  1 | 

| 

I 

From  $2,250  down 
to  $805. 

That  depends  | 
!$40,000  to  $60,000. 

10  per  cent,  in- 
creasing slowly. 

Profs.  $1,500  to 
$2,000. 

I believe  a single]  $45,000. 
board  is  best  al- 
tho  I know  noth-l 
ing  personally  of 
its  workings.  | 

Graduates  not 

more  than  5 per 
cent,  possibly  20 
per  cent  have  at- 
tended 3 months. 

26 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 

Indiana. 

22.  State  Supt. 

1 

“I  would  say  that  one  large  normal  school  is 

preferable  to  a number  of  smaller  normal  schools. 

I think  we  need  one  large  normal  school  in  order  to 

1 train  teachers  for  teaching  in  district  and  town 
[schools  of  state,  so  long  as  the  school  is  sufficient  to 

I do  the  work.  When  other  normal  schools  are  neces- 
jsary  I think  they  should  be  smaller  and  a part  of 
| the  normal  school  system  of  which  the  large  normal 


school,  first  named,  is  the  head.  There  should  be  a 
sufficient  number  of  these  smaller  normal  schools  lo- 
cated in  such  a way  as  to  meet  the  needs  of  teachers 
in  the  various  localities.  I should  say  that  these 
smaller  schools  should  give  about  a two  y ars’  course, 
one  to  the  study  of  common  branches  ai  1 the  other 
to  professional  work.  The  admission  shoul  1 be  limited 
to  high  school  graduates  or  to  persons  of  known 
ability.  Full  credit  should  be  given  for  two  years 
work  in  these  smaller  schools  in  the  large  central 
school.” 

Iowa. 

23.  State  Supt. 

“We  have  but  one  normal  school  in  this  state. 
There  is  an  advantage  in  having  one  great  library, 
one  strong  department  of  domestic  economy,  physical 
training,  kindergarten,  etc.,  etc.,  and  the  strength  in 
many  ways  that  comes  from  numbers.  The  expense 
travel  from  remote  parts  of  the  state  to  the  one  school 
is  considerable  and  no  doubt  prevents  many  attending 
who  would  be  enrolled  in  a school  nearer  at  hand,  that 
is  the  aggregate  attendance  in  a,  number  of  schools 
would  doubtless  be  much  greater  than  attendance  in 
one  school,  however  strong.” 

24.  Cedar  Palls 
N.  S. 

“Do  not  know  which  is  preferable.  Iowa  at 
present,  has  only  one  and  proposes  to  make  it  a 
valuable  institution  by  fine  plant,  a superior  equip- 
ment and  variable  courses.  It  is  not  considered  in- 
ferior to  the  agricultural  college  or  the  state  univer- 
sity, but  is  essentially  different  in  all  respects.  Its 
limitation  is  the  preparation  of  teachers  for  the  public 
schools.” 

25.  Woodbine  N. 
S. 

“A  number  of  small  ones.  Accommodate  more 
pupils  and  keep  in  better  touch  with  common  schools.” 

Kansas. 

26.  Emporia  N.  S. 

“Yes.  The  smaller  schools  do  not  rise  to  the  dignity 
a normal  school  should  possess.  There  is  no  more 
reason  for  multiplying  normal  schools  than  for  multi- 
plying state  universities  or  state  agricultural  colleges.” 

Central  school  is  establishing  branches. 

University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


2 7 


Central  vs.  local|  Apropriation  |Per  cent  of  Nor-|Salary  Schedule. 
Boards.  | sufficient  for  I mal  Trained  | 

[ small  Normal  [ Teachers.  | 


If  the  state  sup-|$20,000  to  $25,000 
ports  a number  | would  be  suffi- 
of  normal  schools  cient  amount  to 
as  above.  they | put  a small  nor- 

should  be  con- mal  school  on  an 
trolled  by  one!  efficient  basis, 

central  board. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

! 1 

1 1 

1 

1 1 

|Abcut  20  per  ceni 
have  had  norma] 
training,  a,  larger 
per  cent  have  hac 
some  normal 
training. 

t 

[ 

l 

| 

| 

t 

i 

1 

! 

1 

One  board  would|  Appropriation  in 
bs  preferable.  Ilowa  is  $130,000| 

(for  2,000  students. | 

1 1 

1 

1 

! I 

Many  in  town, 
few  in  country. 

“Do  not  know|  “$25,000,  $35, 000 1 Increasing'  in 

Illinois  prefers! according-  to  var-|  better  paying) 

separation,  Wis-|iety  of  work  at-jpositions,  no  cen-| 
consin  u n i o n, [/tempted.  Generallsus  taken, 
both  are  satisfied!  courses  might  be| 
and  equally  suc-l maintained  onj 

cessful.”  | $15,000  a year  I 

Ithe  school  would! 

(only  be  fair  as  to|  | 

opportunity  un- 
(der  the  latter.” 

Printed  report. 

“One  Central|$25,000  as  mostllO  to  15  per  cent.| 

board  to  prevent  state  schools  are) Probably,  yes.  [ 

rivalry.”  managed  $10„000| 

1 should  do  it..  | | 

$500  tcT$  1,400  for 
each  teacher. 

! 

By  one  board.  | Annual  income! Probably  10  per| 

!$30,000  to  $50,000.! cent  Normally! 

1 trained  teachers 
Istay  longer  in 
[profession,  in- 

creasing. 

1 1 i 

Important  full 

professors  $1,890, 
exclusive  of 
summer  session. 
Assoc.  $1,450  a 
year,  exclusive  of 
summer  school. 

|Some  exceptions 
full  salary  roll  en- 
dorsed. 

2 8 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 

Louisiana. 

27.  State  Super. 

“Yes,  one  school  can  be  better  equipped  and  made 
more  efficient  unless  the  state  is  rich  and  willing  to 
spend  money  for  normal  school  work.” 

Maine. 

28.  State  Super. 

Several. 

29.  Gorham  N.  S. 

“Three  hundred  students  is  enough  for  a school 
and  that  number  only  in  a city  which  can  give  3,000 
children  in  practice  schools.  Less  than  that  if  you 
have  not  enough  pupils  in  lower  grades  for  practice 
schools.” 

Massachusetts. 
30.  State  Super. 

Your  first  question  must  be  answered  by  each 
state  for  itself  in  accordance  with  its  own  local  con- 
dtions.  Rhode  Island  finds  one  central  school  sufficient 
for  its  purposes.  Massachusetts  has  nine  and  finds 
them  none  too  many  to  provide  the  teachers  whom 
it  needs.” 

1 

31.  Fitchburg  N.  I 
S.  1 

i 

1 

! 

“No.  Several  being  easier  of  access  :raw  pupils 
who  can  attend  only  by  living  at  home.” 

32.  Framingham  | 
N.  S. 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

“This  state  has  nine  schools,  all  comparatively 
small.  We  evidently  tend  to  small  schools.” 

33.  Hyannis  N.  S.| 

1 

“No.  In  smaller  schools  there  is  better  oopor- 
tunity  for  individual  instruction  and  practice  work.” 

Massachusetts.! 
34.  Salem. 

1 

I 

1 

“No.  The  smaller  normal  schools  are  preferable, 
because  of  the  greater  ease  of  thorough  acquaintance 
of  student  by  teacher,  and  of  providing  a proper  sup- 
ply of  model  and  practice  schools.” 

University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


29 


Central  vs.  Local 
Boards. 

Appropriation 
sufficient  for 
Small  Normal 

Per  Cent  of  Nor- 
mal trained 
Teachers. 

Salary  Schedule 

r 

1 

Almost  the  samelOne-third  slowly 
as  for  large) increasing, 

school  salaries! 

alone,  $30,000.  | 

One  board. 

$15,000. 

I 

1 

33  per  cent,  in- 
creasing at  rate 
of  10  per  cent  a 
year. 

One  board.  $20,000  a year  for| 

| running  ex-| 

1 |penses. 

1 

1 1 

Increasing,  but] 

very  slowly. 

“I  should  say)  Gives  facts  for  | 

that  it  is  better!  Massachusetts,  j 
that  all  the  nor- (Bridgewater, 
mal  schools  of!  $45,7811 

the  state  he  un-j Salem  29,886! 

der  the  control  of|Fitchburg  30,000 1 
one  central  boarcjrange  from  $22,- [ 
some  members  of 1 000  to  $45,000. 
which  should  be 
assigned  as  aj 

special  commit-! 
tee  for  each 

school.”  |< 

46.8  per  cent, 

grows  at  rat  of 
about  2 per  cent 
a year. 

1 

1 

_ _ 1 

Central  Board.  | 

1 

| 

1 

1 

$30,000  a year. 

Increasing. 

Principal  $3,000 

Male  teachersi 
$2,200,  $2,000 
Female, 

$1,600,  $1,000 

Both. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

! 

I 

1 

$35,000  a year. 

Don’t  know. 

Principal 

1 prof. 

1 prof. 

1 prof. 

5 profs. 

2 profs. 

1 prof. 

1 prof. 

1 prof. 

$3,000 

1,750 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

750 

650 

600 

Combination  off 
the  two. 

$30,000  a year. 

I 

1 

Probably  a com-| 
bination  of  two 
methods  wouldi 
work  work  best 
in  practice. 

State  apropria- 
tion  $30,975-$4,- 
750  paid  by  city 
for  model  teach- 
ers, $35,500. 

| About  50  per|Men  who  work 

|eent,  increasing.  | full  time  are  paid 
| $ 2,300 ; women 

Ifrom  $800  to  $1,- 
| 1 200,  $1,000  being 

!the  average. 


30 


University  cf  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 

35.  Worcester 

“I  should  say  decidedly  not.” 

Michigan. 

36.  State  Supt. 

• 

“Our  experience  shows  that  it  is  preferable  to 
have  several  normal  schools  in  the  state  rather  than 
one  large  central  school.  Our  experience  also  shows 
that  the  practice  teaching  or  the  work  of  the  training 
school  department  is  one  of  the  most  important  fea- 
tures and  that  if  your  school  is  so  large  as  to  reduce 
the  amount  of  possible  practice  teaching,  you  have 
decreased  the  efficiency  of  the  institution.  Our  state 
normal  college  enrolls  about  a thousand  students  and 
that  is  all  it  ought  to  accommodate.  We  have  three 
other  normal  schools,  one  in  the  peninsula,  one  in  the 
southwest  part  of  the  state  and  another  in  the  north 
central  part.” 

County  normal  training  classes  in  rural  districts. 

37.  Ypsilanti  N. 
S. 

1 

| 

1 

“One  central  with  others  more  elementary  in 
character  acting  as  feeders  for  the  central  one  seems 
to  be  the  best  system.” 

Minnesota. 

38.  State  Supt. 

I 

1 

1 

“From  the  standpoint  of  economy  to  the  state, 
I think  it  preferable  to  maintain  only  one  large  cen- 
tral school.  From  the  standpoint  of  those  who  are 
in  attendance,  howbver,  I thi'nk  it  better  economy  to 
have  several  located  in  different  sections  of  the  state. 

I think  also  from  the  point  of  good  administration  and 
best  results  in  work,  the  smaller  school  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred.” 

39.  Duluth  S.  N.| 
S. 

. I 

“I  think  not  for  the  reason  that  the  smaller 
student  body  and  faculty  can  do  more  satisfactory 
work  and  because  variation  in  points  of  view  is  likely 
to  f’irni'sh  a stimulus  not  otherwise  obtainable.” 

40.  Mankato  S.  N.f 
S. 

1 

I 

1 

1 

“We  prefer  the  smaller  schools  on  account  of  the 
closer  touch  possible  between  student  and  teacher, 
and  the  better  opportunity  for  practice  teaching.” 

41.  Moorehead  S.| 

“We  have  five  normal  schools  in  Minnesota.” 

N.  S. 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin  31 


Central  vs.  Local 
Boards. 

Appropriation  (Per  cent  of  Nor- 
sufficient  for  | mally  Trained 
Small  Normal  j Teachers. 

Salary  Schedule. 

A combination. 

Not  far  from 
$30,000. 

“All  our  normal 
schools  are  under 
the  control  of  one 
state  board  of 
education  which 
is  by  far  prefer- 
able to  having-  a 
each  institution 

board  to  control 
separately  be- 

cause you  then 
secure  uniform- 
ity, harmony  and 
economiy  in  ad- 
ministration.” 

The  annual  ap- 
propriation for 

our  northern 

peninsula  school 
which  enrolls! 

about  200  stu- 

dents is  for  each 
of  the  ensuing 
two  years  $44,- 
000;  for  the 

western  normal 
school  its  $39,000. 

50  per  cent  grad-| 

ed  schools,  in- 
creasing each 

year. 

[ 

One  board  in 

control  over  all  is 
decidedly  the 

best  plan. 

Do  not  know. 

Increasing  rapid- 1 

iy. 

1 

1 I 

I 

1 ! 

President  $5,500 

Heads  of  depart- 
ments 2,500 

Assistant  profs. 

2,000 

(Instructors  900 

[ to  1,400 

Assistants  500 

[ to  800 

“1  think  the  onei 
central  board  is 
decidedly  to  be 
preferred  as  it 
gives  unity  and 
economy  of  ad-'| 
ministration. 

[After  necessary! 25  per  cent  of 
building  and  per- [normal  graduates 
manent  equip- [a  still  further 

ment  $25,000  an- (number  have  a 
nuaJly.  [partial  normal 

1 training. 

| i 

1 1 

By  a central 

board  with  a lo- 
cal member. 

|For  maintenance 
not  less  than 
$35,000  to  40,000. 

On  the  increase. 

$3,000  to  $ 8,00. | 

1 

We  decidedly| 

prefer  our  system 
of  one  central 

board  as  giving 
large  freedom  to 
the  president  and 
freedom  from  lo- 
ral  interference. 

($30,000  to  $35,000.| Increasing,  Nor- 
mal schools  can- 
Inot  meet  the  de- 
Imands. 

1 

I 

1 1 

Men  teachers  $1,- 
400  to  $1,800; 

women  $800  to 
$1,200. 

We  have  one 
board  and  system 
is  satisfactory. 

[$25,000  to  $30,000.|Per  cent  is  large, 
[great  demand  for 
[graduates. 

1 i 

[Average  of  $1,800 
for  men  and  $1,- 
200  for  women, 

1 entire  list  given. 

University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


3« 


42.  St.  Cloud 
N.  S. 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 


S.|  “I  do  not  believe  in  one  large  central  school.  First, 
schools  should  be  near  people;  second,  schools  have 
more  political  prestige  if  different  parts  of  the  state 
are  represented;  third,  for  practice  purposes  schools 
should  not  be  too  large.” 


43.  Winona  S. 
S. 


Missouri. 

44.  State  Supt. 


Montana. 


45.  Dillon  N. 


N. 


“We  have  five  schools  in  this  state  and  I think 
the  attendance  i's  larger  and  the  work  accomplished 
better  than  in  one  central  school.  Students  who  at- 
jtend  a normal  school  are  not  inclined  to  travel  the 
| longer  distance  necessary  in  reaching  a central 
school.” 


Missouri  believes  in  several  normal  schools  rather 
than  one  large  central  school.  Our  legislature  has 
recently  voted  to  establish  two  new  normal  schools 
in  addition  to  the  three  already  in  existence.  Several 
schools  located  in  different  parts  of  the  state  will 
come  directly  in  contact  with  teachers  and  influence 
them  more.  The  faculty  of  a normal  school  having 
about  20  counties  in  its  district  will  in  some  measure 
supervise  the  schools  of  that  di'strict,  while  one  large 
central  school  will  not  reach  the  teachers  of  the  out- 
lying counties  and  will  not  exert  the  same  influence 
on  these  counties  as  upon  those  nearer  its  location. 
One  large  school  will  assume  to  itself  the  function  of 
preparing  teachers  for  the  city  schools  and  high 
schools  and  not  adjust  itself  to  the  rural  and  village 
school  conditions  as  readily  and  positively. 


Yes.  It  is  too  hard  to  get  sufficient  funds  to  main- 
tain several. 


S. 


“In  reply  to  No.  1.,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  burden 
of  proof  rests  with  those  who  would  have  more  than 
one  normal  school.  Why  have  several  any  more  than 
several  universities  or  several  agricultural  colleges? 
It  is  desirable  to  have  the  facilities  within  easy  reach 
but  suppose  you  try  to  locate  institutions  in  Oregon 
| so  that  one  would  be  more  than  a hundred  miles  from 
la  normal  school  It  would  cost  the  state  less  to  pay 
I the  railroad  fare  of  all  the  students  who  would  be 
| more  than  one  hundred  miles  from  a central  normal 
j school  than  it  would  to  maintain  the  additional 
I schools.  Besides  this  a is  very  much  more  efficient 
Ifaeulty  could  be  maintained  because  of  the  possibility 
|of  more  thoroughly  organized  systematizing  the  work. 

| Where  a state  has  already  made  heavy  investments 
in  plants  at  various  points,  the  practical  problem  is, 
jhowever,  seriously  modified.” 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


33 


Appropriation 
sufficient  for 
Small_Normal 
$28,000. 


|Per  cent  of  Nor-|  Salary  Schedule 
I mally  Trained  j 
| Teachers.  | 

(About  33  perlPresident  $3,000 

cent,  is  increas- 1 Director  of  train- 
ing-. | ing  depart  2,000 

(Heads  of  departs 
| $1,000  to  $1,600 

(Assistants  900 

| to  810 

_(.__ | | 

“I  prefer  the  c-en- (After  plant  is| Graduates  10  perPresident  $3,000 
tral  board  which,]  established  it|cent,  Normal! Men  1,800  to  2,000 
however,  extends) would  requirel  teachers  notj(  Women  600 


Central  vs.  Local| 
Boards. 

1 

There  should  be] 
one  central  board) 
thus  to  prevent) 
livalry,  dissen-j 
sion,  etc.  Onej 
Resident  director! 
to  represent  local| 
conditions  is  aj 
wise  idea. 


some  freedom  to|$30,000  annually] graduates  10  per 
separate  schoolsjfcr  running  ex-|'cent. 
to  meet  local|penses. 
conditions.” 


to 


1,650 


Under 
boards  c*ur  nor 
mal  schools  work 
very  harmonous- 
ly  and  co-operate 
as  far  as  courses 
of  study  and  re- 
quirements for| 
entrance  and] 
graduation  are| 
concerned,  the| 
state  superin -( 
tendent  is  a* 
member  of  each] 
of  the  boards  and] 
is  the  harmoniz-| 
ing  influence  of 
these  boards. 


separate]  After  school  is) Is  increasing,  15 1 
equipped  it] per  cent  are  nor-) 
should  have  an)mally  trained,  30 ( 
anual  appropria-jper  cent  come  in] 


tion  of  support  of 
about  $25,000. 


contact  with  nor- 
mal schools  • 


They  should  havellt  costs  us  $27, -(From  10  to  15  per 
local  board  and|000  annually.  |cent. 
central  governing! 
boards. 


My  answer  to  No.| 
2 must  be  purely] 
theoretical  as  I| 
have  no  experi-l 
ence  to  throw| 
light  on  that] 
point,  I should] 
prefer,  however! 
to  try  the  centrall 
board. 


Graduates  all  go( Figures  in  report 
to  graded  schools.|sent. 

I I 


i 


34 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


ils  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 


Nebraska.  | “A  number  of  small  scnools  preferable.  Experience 

46.  State  Super.  |cf  older  states.”  

47.  Peru  St.  N.  | ‘‘We  prefer  having  two  in  this  state.” 

i 


New  Jersey 
48.  Trenton  N.  S. 


New  York 
49.  Cortland  N.  S. 


“I  think  the  number  of  normal  scnools  in  any  state 
should  be  decided  by  the  clearly  expressed  conditions 
of  the  state,  territory,  and  as  to  population.  Those 
I who  are  to  take  up  the  work  of  teaching,  as  a rule, 
| have  limited  means,  hence  we  find  that  railway  dis- 
tances very  much  effects  their  attendance  upon  the 
I normal  schools.  Any  normal  school  will  find  its 
| largest  percentage  of  attendance  relatively  speaking, 
from  the  nearby  sections.  • 

“Secondly:  Normal  schools  are  educe  tional  insti- 

tutions of  the  higher  order  and  as  such  follow  the 
general  principles  of  educational  institutions.  For 
instance,  they  must  be  large  enough  to  be  able  to  get 
strong  faculties  and  a well  planned  department  or- 
ganization, good,  laboratories,  libraries,  etc.,  and  a 
good  institutional  spirit  something  akin  to  that  spirit 
reached  in  many  of  the  colleges:  If  the  normal 
schools  are  too  small  and  too  personal,  they  come 
short  in  these  features.  I should  say  that  a normal 
school  should  enroll  about  four  hundred  students  and 
that  after  this  enrollment  is  reached,  it  i's  better  to 
establish  other  schools  in  different  population  centers 
than  to  go  on  increasing  the  size  of  a school  beyond 
this  point.” 

“No.  Because  it  cannot  conveniently  accomodate 
so  many  students.” 


50.  Fredonia  N.  S.|  “In  a state  as  large  as  Oregon  there  should  be 
more  than  one  normal  school  to  elict  interest  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  state  as  well  as  for  convenience.” 


51.  Amaica  N.  S.  | “One  central  school  of  higher  grade  for  secondary 
jteachers;  others  for  elementary  teachers.” 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin  35 


Central  vs.  Local 
Boards. 

Appropriation 
sufficient  for  | 
Small  Normal  I 

I Per  Cent  of  Nor- 
mal trained 
Teachers. 

! Salary  Schedule 

1 I 

i 

Controlled  by  one 
central  board. 

$25,000  a year  for|See  junior  nor-| 
salaries.  |mal  bulletin. 

I 

1 

By  one  board. 

$60,000  for  sal- 
aries and  mainte-, 
nanc,e. 

Is  increasing 

rapidly.  Can’t 

give  percentage, 
but  low. 

Pres.  $2,500 

to  1,000 

2 profs.  1,400 

to  900 

2 profs.  1,200 

2 profs.  1,100 

Must  receive  1,100 

I think  the  nor- 
mal schools  of  a 
state  should  all 
be  under  the 

same  board  of 
education,  other- 
wise there  are 
bound  to  be  leg- 
islative rivalries, 
this  board  can 
appoint  as  many 
committees  on 

local  schools  as  it 
likes. 

1 

| 

! 

$30,000  a suffi-| 
cient  annual  ap- 
propriation for  a 
school  of  250  pu- 
pils. 

L 

j . ' 

1 1 

33  1-3  per  cent,  is 
increasing. 

1 

1 

' 

i 

! 

( 

i 

1 

; 

, 

1 

1 

A combination  of 
two,  the  fiist  will 
secure  uniform- 
ity, the  second 
will  take  care  of 
local  interests. 

| $35,000. 

t 

1 

I 

! 

|Princi'pal  $3,300 

|5  men  1,100 

to  2,200 

2 receive  1,900 

Women  650 

| to  1,200 

j mostly  1,000 

Separate  boards|$15,000  to  $25,000. 

with  central  con-1 

trol. 

I 

1 

! 

25  per  cent  in|Principal  $3,300 

! 1899  it  was  23  per|4  men  1,600 

cent.  I to  2,000 

1 12  women  400 

| to  1,300 

| mostly  oth- 
j er  700  or  800. 

By  a central 

board. 

1 

1 

1 1 

(About  65  per  cent|Men  $1,900  to  $2,- 
|500. 

jWomen  $800  to 
1 | $ 1,400. 

36 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 


52.  New  Paltz 

“No.  Competition  is  as  necessary  in  developing 
ideals  in  educational  institutions  of  efficiency  as  in 
business.” 

53.  New  York  N.|  “No.  Several  schools  accessible  to  students  in 

S.  | different  parts  of  the  state  will  be  more  largely  at- 

tended and  each  will  exert  an  uplifting  influence  in 
its  own  locality.” 

54.  Oneonta  N.  S.|  I consider  several  smaller  schools  preferable,  com- 

| petition  is  a good  thing,  traveling  expenses  ofi 
| students  lessstudents  less. 

Plattsburg'  | “No.  Smaller  schools  are  able  to  give  better  train - 

■N*  jing  in  observation  and  practice  work  end  more  indi- 

vidual attention.  Of  course  equal  faculties  and 
(equipment  are  presupposed.” 

North  Dakota. 
56.  Valley  City. 

1 

“Yes.  If  independent  of  university  or  other  con- 
trol and  is  properly  located.  Its  aim  should  be  to 
It  ’in  out  a number  of  highly  trained  teachers  ” 

1 

I 

Oklahoma. 

57.  State  Supt. 

“The  prevailing  sentiment  among  educators  in  the 
territory  is  that  we  should  emphasize  the  schools  for 
secondary  education  and  decrease  the  number  of 
normal  schools  to  one  (from  three).  At  the  present 
our  normal  schools  are  doing  about  fourteen  years’ 
work.  We  feel  that  a great  good  could  be  done  to  a 
greater  number  if  this  change  were  made. 

University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


37 


Central  vs.  Local| 
Boards  for  Nor-| 
mal  Schools.  j 

Appropriation  | 
sufficient  for  | 
Small  Normal  | 

Per  cent  of  Nor- 
mally Trained 
Teachers. 

Salary  Schedule. 

Combination  ofj 

the  two  provided 
that  the  local 
boards  have  some 
real  power  vested 
in  them  and  not 
centralized  pow- 
er, otherwise  one 
central  board  as 
in  Massachusetts 
is  preferable. 

Not  less  than  1 
$40,000. 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

| 

1 

Principal  $3,000 

1 house  750 

1 prof.  1,700 

2 profs.  1,600 

2 profs.  1,400 

2 profs.  1,200 

1 prof.  1,000 

1 prof.  900 

Grade  supervisors 
$800  to  $1,000, 
critic  teachers 

$550  to  $650. 

By  a central 

board,  local 

board  are  chiefly 
interested  in  lo- 
cal graft. 

$25,000. 

1 

I 

•1 

Increasing. 

1 

1 

I 

Principal 
First  ass’t 
Ass’t 
to 

$5,000 

3,500 

1,900 

2,400 

Combination. 

$40,000  annual 

maintenance. 

I 

Increasing  25  to| 
30  per  cent. 

Principal 

Men 

Women 

$3,300 

2,000 

1,000 

On  average. 

Would  favor  cen- 
tral board  of  con- 
trol with  perhaps 
a local  board  of 
visitation. 

$40,000  to  $50,000. j 

I 1 

1 
I 
1 

Principal 

4 men 
to 

Women 

to 

mostly 

$3,300 

1,500 

1,800 

500 

800 

800 

A combination  of 
two,  one  board 
tends  to  mechan- 
ism and  horizon- 
tal rules.  School 
should  be  inde- 
pendent enough 
to  encourge  in- 
indispensible  in- 
itiative in  man- 
agement. 

| $40,000 

f 1 

1 

1 

i 

! 

Increasing  slowly 

• 

1 

Principal 

4 men 
to 

9 men 
to 

1 

$2,800 

1,200 

1,600 

600 

1,300 

At  the  present|For  150  students 
time,  the  threej  $20,000. 

normal  schools| 

1 Is  fair. 

are  c-  o n - 

1 

. 

trolled  by  one 

central  board  of 
regents.  In  some 
ways  this  is  very 
satisfactory,  in 

l 

j 

1 

others  very  detri- 
mental. Our  peo- 
ple serve  without 
comp  e n s a t i o n 
practically  and 

the  length  of 

time  required  to 
transact  the  bus- 

iness  of  the 

board  detains 

them  too  long 

from  their  regu- 
lar vocations. 

Either  system 

will  have  its  ad- 
vantages. 

1 

38 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


Is  One  Large  Central  School  Preferable  to  a Number 
of  Smaller  Schools? 

Pennsylvania.  | 
58.  State  Supt. 

“I  prefer  several  schools.” 

South  Carolina. | 
59,  State  Supt.  | 

“Yes,  for  economy  and  efficiency’s  sake.” 

South  Dakota. 
60.  Madison  N.  S. 

“It  is  not.  The  great  school  has  a mass  of  stu- 
dents and  educates,  trains  and  graduates  in  mass. 
The  school  of  200  to  500,  graduating  from  40  to  80 
each  year,  knows,  educates  and  trains  every  individ- 

[ ’al  and  is  sure  of  all  its  work,  develops  character 
[and  power.  The  state  cannot  be  reached  by  one 
as  by  three  or  four.  The  work  of  all  is  needed  badly.” 


Texas. 

61.  State  Supt. 

“In  Texas,  several  preferable  because  of  the  con- 
tinental proportions  of  the  state.” 

Vermont. 

62.  State  Supt. 

“No.  Several  schools  located  in  different  parts 
of  the  state  will  graduate  manv  more  teachers  than 
one  .school.  In  seeking-  to  increase  the  per  cent,  of 
trained  teachers  numbers  constitute  an  important 
element.  One  school  would  be  of  higher  standard, 
bue  300  fairly  trained  etachers  will  co  a state  more 
good  than  100  finely  trained  teachers.” 

63.  Johnson  S.  N. 
S. 

1 

1 

1 

“We  have  three  in  this  small  state  of  Vermont 
but  this  is  due  more  to  historical  than  practical  rea- 
sons I fancy.  If  the  founding  of  a normal  school 
came  up  as  a new  proposition  I doubt  if  there  would 
be  more  than  one.  Certainly  not  more  than  two,  one 
for  the  eastern  and  one  for  the  western  side  of  the 
state.” 

Virginia. 

64.  Petersburg  S.l 
N.  S. 

“Smaller  schools  are  preferable  because  of  ac- 
cessibility and  because  more  personal  work  can  be 
done  for  the  students.” 

Washington  . | 
65.  State  Supt. 

1 

1 

1 

“In  answer  to  your  first  question  I will  simply 
|ask  which  you  think  preferable,  a large  university 
well  supported  or  a small  affair  which  has  vio  stand- 
ing anywhere  in  the  union?  If  the  state  supports 
several  normal  schools  will  they  rank  as  highly  as 
one  well  supported  and  well  equipped  normal  school? 
My  opinion  is  they  will  not.” 

I 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


39 


< Antral  vs.  Local 
Boards. 

Appropriation  | 
sufficient  for 
Small  Normal 

Per  cent  of  Nor-I 
mally  Trained  | 
Teachers.  | 

Salary  Schedule.^ 

I prefer  central 
board. 

$15,000  a year. 

Its  increasing! 

percentages  mis-| 
lead. 

One  central 

board. 

$100,000. 

25  per  cent  rap-| 
idly  increasing. 

By  one  single!  From  $15,000  up 
board  for  all  un-|to  $20,000  be 

questionably,  thejstrictly  normal 

other  plan  was| schools  not  col-| 
tried  in  this  state  leges  or  miscel-| 
and  was  a fail-[laneous  schools,  j 
ure.  One  board j 
for  all  state  insti-| 
tutions  is  our 
practical  plan. 

Is  increasing  de-| 
mand  is  for  more. 

1 

President  $2,000 

3 men  1,300 

to  1,400 

8 women  900 

to  1,200 

mostly  900 

1 

A combination  of 
the  two. 

Not  counting 

p’ant,  $20,000. 

No  statistics, 

number  is  rapid- 
ly increasing. 

By  a central 

board  with  local 
representation  on 
the  board. 

$15,000  minimum. 

; 

i 

i 

1 24  pet  of  normal 
[graduates  8 per 
[cent  have  attend- 
ed normal  schools 
8 per  cent  are 
college  graduates 
60  per  cent  high 
school  graduates 
90  per  cent  have 
attended  either 

college,  normal  or 
high  school. 

1 

The  control  is  in 
a central  board  of 
which  the  state 
supt.  of  education 
is  a member  plus 
one  resident] 

member  in  each 
of  the  towns 

where  the  nor- 
mals are  located. 
It  represents  all 
interests  and 

works  well. 

j $ 22,500  would  be 
| enough  for  one,  is 
mow  divided 

|among  three. 

1 

1 

1 

About  30  per  cent 
Is  increasing,  de- 
mand greater 

than  supply. 

i 

! ! 

Principal  $1,800 

Ass’ts  500 

to  800 

I 

1 

! 

! 

Combination  of|  $20,000. 
local  and  state 
board. 

If  increasing  per- 
centage unknown. 

1 

1 

Should  be  under 
the  control  of  one 
board  of  trustees 
or  regents  for  the 
reason  that  if 
you  have  a single 
board  you  get 
uniform  results 
while  with  a 

lln  Washington 

|from  $74,000  to 
$55,000  including 
repairs. 

Statistics  are  in- 
accurate, so  not 
given. 

1 

4 

board  for  each 
normal  school 

,|you  do  not. 

4o 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


I 

i 

i 

66.  Bellingham  N.|  “In  my  opinion  a normal  school  does  its  best 

S.  | work  when  it  does  not  have  more  than  three  or  four 

| hundred  students.  The  personal  element  is  of  much 
] importance  in  normal  school  work.  [ should  think 
| that  one  normal  school  in  eastern  and  one  in  Western 
j Oregon  would  be  sufficient  for  many  years  to  come.” 

I 

West  Virginia.  I “A  central  school  is  less  expensive  on  the  whole 

67.  State  Supt.  |and  therefore  more  likely  to  be  able  to  supply  train- 

'ing  of  the  highest  grades.  As  schools  are  educators, 
land  therefore  benefits  the  community,  the  more  the 
1 better.” 


I 


Wisconsin 
68.  Milwaukee  N. 
S. 


‘‘In  regard  to  question  No.  1,  I have  but  one 
opinion,  and  that  is  that  a number  of  smaller  normal 
schools  would  be  preferable  to  one  large  centrally  lo- 
cated normal  school.  My  native  state  is  Michi- 

igan  where  for  years  they  had  one  large 

normal  school.  Investigation  showed  that 
ninety  per  cent,  of  its  attendance  was  drawn  from 
adjacent  counties.  Remote  parts  of  the  state  were 
not  drawn  upon.  The  factor  of  expense  became  an 
important  one.  Moreover  the  remote  parts  of  the 
state  did  feel  the  touch  of  the  normal  school.  It  was 
not  big  enough  to  make  itself  felt  through  the  entire 
state.  Within  the  last  eight  years  three  normal 
schools  have  been  established  in  Michigan.  The  at- 
tendance at  the  central  school  has  materially  increased 
and  the  other  three  schools  are  full.  Bach  one  of  the 
four  schools  draws  largely  from  its  own  locality. 
Wisconsin  is  so  thoroughly  committed  to  tbo  several 
school  plan  that  the  legislature  now  in  session  has 
authorized  the  establishment  of  an  eighth  school. 
Eight  schools  ministering  to  the  eight  sections  of  the 
state  can  do  nearly  eight  times  as  muon  good  for  the 
educational  interests  of  the  sante  as  can  one.” 


69.  Oshkosh  N.  S.|  “I  think  not.  In  a large  school  all  individuality 
I is  in  danger  of  being  lost.  Classes  are  much  too  large 
| generally.” 


70.  Platteville  N.|  “W.e  like  our  system  of  a number  of  small  schools. 

S.  | We  have  seven  of  them  in  Wisconsin.  The  smaller 

I schools  give  better  opportunity  for  personal  conta«  . 
| with  individual  students.” 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


4i 


Central  vs.  Local! 
Boards. 

I 


Never  have 
boards  in  charge 
of  same  school.  In 
Washington  we 
have  separate 
boards,  but  I 
rather  favor  one 
central  board. 


Appropriation 
sufficient  for 
Small  Normal 
two  $60,000  to  erect 
and  equip,  $20,000 
to  $22,000  annual- 
ly for  support. 


| Per  Cent  of  Nor- 
mal trained 
Teachers. 
Small.  Is  in- 
creasing, but  not 
rapidly  on  ac- 
count of  growth 
of  state. 


By 


a centralEnclose  list  of 


board  by  all 
means.  The  sys- 
tem of  a state 
should  be  har- 
monious and  be- 
sides the  multi- 
plication of  the 
unnecessary  ex 
pense. 

I am  thoroughly 
convinced  that 
one  board  is  bet 
ter  than  several. 


appropriations. 


Per  cent  is  small 
but  increasing 
very  rapi'dly  at 
present. 


$35,000  to  $40,000. 


Do  not  think 
is  increasing. 


Salary  Schedule 


President  $3,000 
Teachers  800 

to  1,400 


One  central  boardl$35,000  to  $40,000. 
for  all. 


|N.  S.  supply 
graded  schools 
but  only  about  10 
per  cent  of  teach- 
ers in  ungraded 
schools. 


President 

Men 

to 

Women 

to 

1 woman 
ceives 


By  a 
board. 


central 


$35,000. 


Is  increasing  but 
percentage  is  un- 
known. 


$3,200 

1,500 

2,200 

825 

1,200 

re- 

1,800 


42 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


71.  Whitewater  N . j 
S. 


“We  are  thoroughly  convinced  in  Wisconsin  that 
one  large  normal  school  is  not  preferable  to  a number 
of  smaller  normal  schools.  Of  course  certain  things 
can  be  accomplished  in  a large  school  more  easily  and 
effectively,  just  as  in  a large  factory;  but  these  are 
not  the  things  which  are  most  worth  accomplishing. 
A number  of  schools  distributed  judiciously  about  the 
state  will  reach  a large  number  of  people  who  cannot 
be  reached  by  one  central  school.  Thus  the  schools 
of  the  state  will  be  more  generally  served,  in  the  way 
of  providing  teachers.  Again  a large  central  school 
is  too  much  of  a machine.  Pupils  have  too  little  con- 
tact with  the  administration  and  the  stronger  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty.  Too  much  of  the  instruction  is 
done  in  such  cases  by  subordinate  and  comparatively 
cheap  instructors.  The  school  cannot  accomplish  any 
such  work  in  the  way  of  character  building  and  per- 
sonal molding  of  its  students  as  it  is  done  in  smaller 
schools.  Doubtless  2000  pupils  when  once  gathered 
can  be  more  economically  taught  in  a large  school, 
but  they  will  not  be  as  effectively  taught.  The  ele- 
ment of  personal  influence,  so  important  in  the  in- 
spiration and  training  of  teachers  cannot  be  whole- 
saled to  the  best  effect. 


I 

I 


University  of  Oregon  Bulletin 


43 


Central  vs.  Local 
Boards. 


Our  «even  nor- 
mal schools  in 
Wisconsin  are 
controlled  by  onej $30,000. 
board.  We  believe 
that  this  is  a 
much  better  plan 
than  the  one  fol- 
lowed in  New 
York  and  Penn 


Appropriation  [Per  cent  of  Nor- 
sufficient  for  | mally  Trained 
Small  Normal  j Teachers. 
Smallest  schools|Of  9,000  county 
in  Wisconsin!  teachers  1,000 


costs  more  than 
Perhaps 
schools  of  the 
size  you  indicate 
could  be  main- 
tained at  an  an- 
nual expense  of 
$25,000  each,  cer 


sylvania,  where  tainly  not  for  any 


local  boards  have 
too  much  In- 
fluence and  the 
schools  are  run 
too  much  in  the 
interest  of  the 
locality  and  not 
enough  in  the  in- 
terests of  the 
state  at  large.  In 
our  state,  one 
member  of  the 
state  board  is  ap- 
pointed from 
each  of  the  towns 
where  normal 

schools ' are  lo- 
cated. This  givesj 
the  locality  . all 
the  representa-| 
tion  to  which  it | 
is  really  entitled.  | 


less,  in  any  ade- 
quate manner 


have  graduated, 
1,500  attended 
without  gradua- 
tion in  city 
schools,  3,500 
mostly  normal 
graduates  about 
35  per  cent. 


Salary  Schedule. 


' 

' 

i 

o 

be 

State. 

Estimated 
Population  in 
1902-03. 

Number  of  Noi 
mal  Schools. 

Total  Income  Re 
ported. 

No.  of  Schools 
Reporting. 

Average  Income 
Per  School. 

Number  of  Nor- 
mal Students  er 
rolled. 

Cost  of  Normal 
Schools  Per  1,0C 
Inhabitants. 

One  Normal 
School  Student 

for  every 

Population 

Cost  of  Trainin 
Average  Norma] 
Student. 

1. 

Alabama  .... 

1,923,284 

6 

$ 75,201  (6) 

$ 12,540 

1,696 

2. 

Arizona  

133,338 

2 

29,595  (2) 

14,797.5 

212 

3. 

Arkansas  .... 

1,366,119 

2 

12,036  (2) 

6,018 

139 

4. 

Colorado  

. 574,030 

1 

67,600 

67,600 

272 

$117 

2,110 

$248 

5. 

California  . . . 

1,564,286 

5 

189,617  (5) 

37,923 

1,604 

121 

975 

118 

6. 

Connecticut  . . 

956,789 

4 

38,797 

18,398 

596 

7. 

8. 

Columbia  dist 
Florida  

293,217 

566,885 

2 

2 

32,000  (1) 

32,000 

231 

9. 

Georgia  

2,336,404 

4 

58,873  ( 3) 

19,624 

690 

10. 

Idaho  

183,738 

2 

28,290  (2) 

14,145 

290 

11. 

Illinois  

5,117,036 

5 

213,740  (5) 

42,748 

2,816 

41 

1,217 

75 

12. 

Indiana  

2,614,223 

2 

72,500  (1) 

72,500 

1,376 

28 

1,899 

52 

13. 

Iowa  

2,336,484 

2 

141,887  (1) 

141,887 

2,231 

60 

1,047 

63 

14. 

Kansas  

1,469,969 

2 

70,636  (2) 

35,318 

1,954 

48 

752 

36 

15. 

Kentucky  .... 

2,230,619 

2 

14,580  Cl) 

7,290 

133 

16. 

Louisiana 

.1.460,237 

2 

32,200  (1) 

32,000 

686 

17. 

Maine  

. 702,875 

5 

10,830  (2) 

5,415 

969 

18. 

Maryland  . . . . 

.1,231,739 

1 

24,441 

24,441 

322 

19. 

Massachusetts 

2,974,021 

10 

266,658  (8) 

1,777 

89 

1,674 

150 

20. 

Michigan 

2,510,647 

4 

155,363  (3) 

38,820 

1,581 

61 

1,588 

98 

21. 

Minnesota 

.1,857,462 

6 

144,749  (5) 

24,124 

1,248 

77 

1,488 

115 

22. 

Mississippi  . . . 

1,629,771 

5 

7,175  (5) 

1,435 

323 

23. 

Missouri  

3,227,214 

3 

96,500  (3) 

32,166 

2,262 

.... 

24. 

Montana 

277,102 

1 

22,428  (1) 

22,428 

133 

25. 

Nebraska  

1,098,139 

1 

35,000  (1) 

35,000 

557 

31 

1,953 

62 

26. 

N.  Hampshire 

.422,109 

1 

26\800(1) 

26,800 

119 

27. 

New  Jersey  . . . 

,2,016,797 

4 

',9,000  (1) 

79,000  (?) 

900 

28. 

New  Mexico  . . 

, 205,819 

2 

40,900  (2) 

20,450 

83 

29. 

New  York 

7,659,814 

1,976,571 

19 

613,084(16) 
69,635  (4) 

5,784 

1,261 

80 

1,324 

106 

30. 

N.  Carolina... 

6 

17,408 

31. 

North  Dakota  . . 

, 357,594 

2 

17,900  (1) 

17,900 

664 

’ 50 

538 

32. 

Ohio  

.4,302,860 
, 495,285 

4 

519 

33. 

Oklahoma 

4 

90,000  (3) 

30,000 

638 

181 

776 

iii 

33. 

Oregon  

437,302 

4 

56,458  (4) 

14,114 

409 

129 

1,069 

138 

35. 

Pennsylvania  . 

,6,606,747 

15 

519,048  (12) 

6,100 

78 

1,082 

84 

36. 

Rhode  Island.  . 

454,629 

1 

64,000  (1) 

64,000 

217 

140 

2,094 

294 

37. 

S.  Carolina  . . . 

.1,397,067 

1 

660,944  (1) 

60,944 

312 

44 

4,477 

192 

38. 

South  Dakota 

. .443,927 

3 

33,733  (2) 

16,866 

515 

75 

862 

65 

39. 

Tennessee 

.2,095,233 

1 

70,000 

70,000 

568 

40. 

Texas  

3,285,474 
. 295,404 
, 347,007 

1,919,103 
581,626 

4 

143,441  (4) 
30,500  (1) 
20,169  (3) 
217,336  (3) 
130,880  (3) 

35,840 

30,500 

6,723 

72,445 

43,026 

1,407 

643 

293 

313 

692 

40 

2,335 

ioi 

41. 

Utah  

2 

42. 

Vermont  

3 

43. 

Virginia  

3 

44. 

Washington  . . 

3 

*225 

* 840 

189 

4 5. 

W.  Virginia  . . 

1,021,106 

6 

94,493  (6) 

15,747 

957 

92 

1,066 

98 

46. 

Wisconsin  . . . . 

2.155.441 

9 

353,495  (9) 

39,276 

2,514 

164 

857 

140 

